CHARITABLE REGISTRATION FOR SPORT AND RECREATION ORGANISATIONS
UPDATE DECEMBER 2014
Executive summary
Recent decisions by the Charities Registration Board [the Board] have raised questions
about the standing of sport and the desirability of sport and recreation organisations
seeking and maintaining charitable status.
A detailed legal analysis and expansion of the points below follows this summary and
begins on page 4.
What is charitable status?
Registration as a charitable entity may be granted by the Board to those organisations
who purposes are predominantly charitable in nature (i.e. they clearly align with
charitable purposes in the Charities Act).
What are the benefits of charitable registration?





Donee status is the principle direct benefit of charitable status. Donors may claim
tax credit for all donations over $5.
Tax status Most sports organisation can obtain tax exempt status under the
Income Tax Act whether they are a charity or not as long as they exist mainly to
promote amateur sport.
Funders Some sport funders have historically declined applications other than
from registered charities. However, recent inquiry has identified only one funder
who maintains this practice.
Perception There is some evidence of a positive perceptual bias towards
registered charities although this is not quantified in any way.
Commercial benefit Some suppliers offer favourable terms for registered charities.
What are charitable purposes?
The Charities Act 2005 was amended in 2012 to include;
“the promotion of amateur sport may be a charitable purpose if it is a means by which a
charitable purpose listed in subsection (1) is pursued”.
This means that sport is not of itself charitable. A sports organisation may be charitable if
it exists primarily to achieve one or more charitable purposes which are;




Relief of poverty
Advancement of religion
Advancement of education
Any other matter beneficial to the community
Public benefit
In addition to demonstrating one or more of the above purposes the organisation must
meet the test of ‘public benefit’. This means engaging with a ‘sufficient section’ of the
public and ensuring the benefits are direct to the public and not downstream (via other
entities).
The primary purpose is charitable
The charitable purposes must be the main purpose. Just having the purposes stated in
the constitution is not enough. The Board will look for evidence of actual activity,
application of resource and evidence through public reporting.
If there are other non-charitable purposes that the organisation undertakes (like the
promotion of a sport or social activities) they must be secondary or ancillary to the main
charitable purpose.
What is not charitable?
Recent decisions have ruled that;






Single sport facilities are not likely to be charitable. Multipurpose facilities more
probably meet the public benefit test.
This is likely to be consequential in the development of single code facilities, high
performance or otherwise.
Managing and operating a team in a professional competition is too narrow to
meet the public benefit test.
A foundation developing and supporting elite players is not accessible to the
wider public and therefore of limited benefit
A World Championship event is not an ‘open’ event and therefore not benefiting
a sufficient section of the public
Being a regional body claiming to focus on ‘grassroots’ is not in itself adequate.
Health benefits arising from sport can be charitable but some sports may have to
prove with evidence how the sport provides that benefit.
The Swimming New Zealand decision
The recent decision by the Board to deregister Swimming New Zealand includes some
general comments;
“..as a general proposition, bodies established to administer and manage a
sporting code or discipline in a region or for a nation are likely to be established for
the purpose of promoting sport as an ends in itself”
and
2
“ the promotion of sports for elite athletes does not provide sufficient public benefit
to qualify as charitable in law and the promotion of sporting success is not itself a
charitable aim”
Those seeking charitable status
Organisations will need to demonstrate the following;




The dominant, primary or main purpose/s is charitable,
The benefit is provided to a sufficient section of the public.
The activities are directly beneficial to the public and not a downstream effect.
Any non-charitable purposes do not account for more than 30% of the
organisation’s activities
Other options
If the organisation has some purposes that are charitable in nature but when viewed
holistically with its other purposes the organisation is not likely to be predominately
charitable overall, a separate linked trust is probably the best option. There are issues
related to cost, administrative and governance time and ongoing control of the entity
that need to be considered. Detailed legal advice would be required in this case. The
possible benefit needs to be carefully weighed.
Donee Organisation Status
Registered charities that have indicated they wish to hold donee status will automatically be granted
it. This is an Inland Revenue Department process
The current practice of the Department is that deregistration by the Charities Registration Board or
the decline of an application for charitable status will automatically mean the loss of donee status or
an inability to secure it.
Some organisations can gain donee status without being a registered charity but this is likely to be
difficult for sports organisations. The grounds are “charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or cultural”
purposes.
See the detailed advice for further explanation
Other entities
The summary above is largely relevant to national Sport Organisations (NSOs) and
Regional Sporting Organisations (RSOs). The more detailed advice below considers other
entities; facilities, clubs, events, partnerships and Regional Sports Trusts (RSTs).
3
UPDATE ON CHARITIES IN SPORT
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
A recent decision by the Charities Registration Board to deregister national sports
organisation, Swimming New Zealand, as a charity under the Charities Act has
raised questions for sports organisations seeking to obtain, or retain, charitable
status.
1.2
To assist sports organisations to assess their own situation, Sport NZ has obtained
legal advice which is summarised in this paper.
1.3
This paper analyses the Swimming New Zealand decision and other decisions in
sport and discusses the impact on sports organisations and their charitable status.
In particular, this paper:
a.
summarises the law applying to sports organisations seeking to become, or
remain, registered as charitable entities under the Charities Act 2005;
b.
discusses the advantages and disadvantages of being registered as a
charitable entity;
c.
advises whether national sports organisations, regional sports organisations,
sports partnerships, trusts/ foundations and clubs can be charitable entities;
and,
d.
sets out the practical steps which can be taken in order to obtain, retain or
withdraw from being a registered charitable entity.
2.
SWIMMING NEW ZEALAND DECISION
2.1
On 30 September 2014, the Charities Registration Board (“Board”) determined that
Swimming New Zealand could no longer be registered as a charity with effect from
30 October 20141.
2.2
Swimming New Zealand had been originally registered as a charitable entity in
2008 along with many other sports organisations. In 2012, Swimming New Zealand
submitted changes to its constitution (as it was required to do) following the 2012
Review of Swimming New Zealand2.
Swimming New Zealand, Deregistration Decision No D2014-3, 30 September 2014. For this decision and
other sports decisions see Appendix A.
2 Swimming in New Zealand- Growing a Cornerstone Sport: Report of the Independent Working Group
For the Review of Swimming New Zealand – June 2012.
1
4
2.3
After reviewing the constitution changes and enquiring into the activities of
Swimming New Zealand, the Board concluded that Swimming New Zealand did
have some charitable purposes, namely:
a. promoting public participation in swimming as a means by which public health
is promoted; and,
b. advancing education in swim safe programmes.
2.4
However it found that the purpose of promoting competitive swimming was an
end in itself, and did not advance any charitable purpose under section 5(2A) of
the Act.
2.5
The Board concluded that:
“viewed holistically we consider that Swimming New Zealand’s operation involves
a significant investment in elite swimmers, coaches and events that constitutes an
independent (free standing) purpose to promote sporting success.”
2.6
To be a registered charitable entity, the entity must have exclusively charitable
purposes. If the entity has non-charitable purposes they must be ancillary or
secondary purposes.
2.7
The Board found that Swimming New Zealand did not have exclusive charitable
purposes, and had non-charitable purposes (such as promoting the sport) that
were independent purposes and not ancillary or secondary. Accordingly the
Board determined it was in the public interest for Swimming New Zealand to be
removed from the charities register.
2.8
The next section of this paper looks at the law applicable to sports organisations
wishing to be or retain charitable status including the impact of the Swimming New
Zealand decision on sports organisations.
3.
THE LAW
Charities Act 2005 and Cases
3.1
The Charities Act 2005 applies to all entities wishing to be registered charitable
entities in New Zealand.3
The Charitable Trusts Act 1957 also requires trusts and societies to have charitable purposes, but this
Act does not confer any status as a registered “charitable entity”. An application under the Charities
Act is required for registration as a charity.
3
5
3.2
In addition the decisions of the courts from cases brought under Act and previous
charity laws are also applicable in interpreting the law. The decisions of the courts
in other countries with similar laws such as from Canada and Australia are also
taken in account.
3.3
Decisions on the registration and deregistration of charities are made by the
Charities Registration Board (which is part of the Department of Internal Affairs)4.
The decisions of the Board to decline registration or to deregister a charity are
published on its website5.
3.4
The Board is not a court but has statutory decision making powers. Its decisions can
be appealed to the High Court and then further appealed to the Court of Appeal
and Supreme Court.
3.5
There have been several published decisions of the Charities Registration Board
(and its predecessor, the Charities Commission) related to sport in New Zealand6.
3.6
The High Court has only dealt with one case involving sport under the Charities Act,
namely Travis Trust vs Charities Commission7. In this case the court held that a trust
which provided funds to the Cambridge Jockey Club as prize money for a specific
horse race (the “Travis Stakes”) was not charitable.
3.7
There have also been several non-sport related cases in the courts on specific parts
of the Charities Act. Those parts of the Act (and the court’s interpretation of them)
also apply to a sports organisation seeking to be, or remain, registered. For
example the Greenpeace case which was successfully appealed to the Supreme
Court on the issue of political purposes8.
3.8
The Charities Act and its application as interpreted by the Charities Registration
Board (including its predecessor) and the courts (where applicable) to sports
organisations are summarised in this paper.
Its predecessor was the Board of the Charities Commission which ceased to exist in 2012.
See www.charities.govt.nz. The website does not include decisions where an entity chooses to
withdraw its application for registration, or to deregister voluntarily, which often occurs when an entity is
advised of the Board’s intention not to approve registration or to deregister.
6 See table of cases in Appendix A.
7 Travis Trust v Charities Commission, High Court, Wellington, CIV-2008-485-1689, 3 December 2008.
8 Re Greenpeace of New Zealand Inc [2014] NZSC 105, Supreme Court decision, 6 August 2014. In this
case the Supreme Court held that a political purpose (promotion of disarmament and peace) can be
charitable.
4
5
6
Amateur Sport
3.9
There is a specific section on sport in the Act (section 5(2A)) which provides that:
“the promotion of amateur sport may be a charitable purpose if it is a means by
which a charitable purpose listed in subsection (1) is pursued”.
3.10 This section was added to the Act in 2012 following the Travis Trust case9. In other
words, amateur sport by itself is not charitable, but if the sport advances one of the
purposes listed in paragraph 3.17 of this paper, it can be.
3.11 For example, if a sports organisation delivers sport which provides health benefits to
a sufficient section of a community, it can be charitable under the “other matters
beneficial to the community” category.
3.12 The term “amateur sport” is not defined in the Act so its ordinary meaning will
apply.
3.13 This was discussed in the Greater Auckland Netball case, where the entity seeking
to be registered a charity owned the Auckland team in the ANZ Trans-Tasman
netball league. Here the Charities Commission said:
“As players in the ANZ Championship are paid the Commission does not consider
that these teams are amateur in nature. It is noted that the Oxford Concise
English Dictionary defines “amateur” as a person who engages in a pursuit,
especially sport, on an unpaid basis.”10
3.14 This does not mean elite and high performance athletes are not amateur. Sports
organisations with purposes related to athletes who are not paid to play or
compete, will still be amateur. However even if a sports organisation promotes
amateur sport, this is not sufficient by itself for the organisation to be charitable.
There are additional requirements to meet, such as the purposes being of benefit
to a sufficient section of the community, as set out in this paper.
9
Travis Trust see para 3.6 of this paper
Greater Auckland Netball Ltd at para 28
10
7
Charitable Purposes
3.15 A sports organisation wishing to be a registered charitable entity must have
“charitable purposes”11. As noted above, the promotion of sport by itself is not
charitable and it can only be charitable, if it is a means by which another purpose,
which is charitable, is being achieved.
3.16 This was summarised in Travis Trust where the court said12:
“A trust to promote racing could only be charitable in nature if its deeper
purpose was the pursuit of some other objective… Thus if it could have been
established that the true intention of the support for this race was promotion of
health, education or perhaps even animal welfare, it might have satisfied the
test.”
3.17 This means a sports organisation must have one of the following purposes as its
main purpose and not just exist for the promotion of the sport itself.
a. To relieve poverty or other people in need, aged or suffering genuine
hardship such young or disabled people.
Example: a sports organisation which is established to provide for disabled
athletes.
b. To advance religion:
Example: a trust promoting religion through sport and culture.
c. To advance education:
Example: a sports organisation that delivers coaching, umpiring and other
officials programmes for young people.
d. To provide any other matter beneficial to the community
Example: a not for profit organisation that runs fitness programmes for the
general public.
3.18 In addition, a sports organisation that provides facilities for recreation or other
leisure time occupation in the “interests of social welfare”, can be charitable under
section 61A Charitable Trusts Act 1957.
3.19 Sports organisations will tend to fall within the categories of “relief of poverty”,
“advancing education” or providing “other matter beneficial to the community”.
The law and the Charities Board’s interpretation of these three categories, together
with section 61A of Charitable Trusts Act, are discussed in more detail below.
11
12
Section 5(1)
Travis Trust at para 59.
8
Relief of Poverty or Others in Need
3.20 The relief of poverty is wider than relief from being poor.
3.21 In the decision of the Charities Commission in NZ Snowboardcross,13 the trust had
been established to form a snowboardcross team to compete at the 2014 Sochi
Winter Olympics as it was stated that the national body (Snowsports New Zealand)
could not provide financial support for the team. In seeking charitable status, the
trust said its purpose was to support young people with limited means.
3.22 However the Commission said:
“to be charitable under relief of poverty, a purpose must be directed at people
who are poor, in need, aged or suffering genuine hardship and it must provide
relief. Poverty is interpreted broadly in law and a person does not have to be
destitute to qualify as poor. People who are in need, aged or who are suffering
genuine financial hardship from a temporary or long term change in
circumstances are likely to qualify for assistance. Generally, this will include anyone
who does not have access to the normal things of life that most people take for
granted.”
3.23 The Commission went on to conclude that:
“The Board does not consider encouraging and enabling young New Zealanders
to participate in one of the world’s most elite sports competitions [2014 Sochi
Winter Olympic Games] will amount to relief for people who are suffering genuine
hardship or who do not have access to the things in life that most people take for
granted.” “Providing persons from a low decile school with an opportunity to
learn about snowboarding is not the provision of a necessity or a quasi-necessity.”
3.24 The purpose of “relieving poverty” may therefore include sports organisations with
purposes of sporting programmes and activities, for example, for disabled athletes,
young people, older people or people from lower socio-economic areas.
Advancing Education
3.25 The concept of education has been clarified in several decisions and cases.
3.26 In the case of Auckland Water Polo Academy & Educational Trust the trust was
formed to educate and train water polo players, coaches and umpires to assist in
progressing towards national and international representation including
introducing them to USA universities.
13
NZ Snowboardcross at para 17
9
3.27 The Commission said:
“in order for a purpose to advance education, it must provide some form of
education and ensure that learning is advanced. The modern concept of
education covers formal education, training and research in specific areas of
study or expertise. It can also include less formal education in the development of
individual capabilities, competencies, skills and understanding as long as there is a
balanced an systematic process for instruction, training and practice”14.
3.28 In this decision the Commission noted that providing athlete and group education
and training may be charitable “if there is a balanced and systematic process of
instructions, training and practice…however merely increasing an individuals’
knowledge by providing informal advice or guidance is unlikely to amount to
advancing education”15.
3.29 In addition, by way of example, research and development of sailing technology16
has been found not to be charitable in advancing education in a sporting context.
3.30 Examples of advancing education in sport which are more likely to be charitable
(if all the other requirements are met) include:
a. coaching and officials programmes especially if for younger people;
b. sports programmes held within schools or as part of some structured education;
and,
c. programmes that educate people about nutrition, health and other benefits of
participating in physical activity and sport.
Other Matters Beneficial to the Community
3.31 This category will not include every kind of purpose that provides a community
benefit. For example, it will not include purposes to provide catering, recreational
entertainment or social activities for members of an entity17.
3.32 Also, the benefit must be demonstrated. There must be proof that the benefit will
flow from each of the stated purposes, not merely a belief that it will or may occur.
3.33 In addition it must also be a direct benefit, and not a downstream one.18
Auckland Water Polo Academy & Educational Trust at para 30.
Auckland Water Polo Academy & Educational Trust at para 39
16 Team NZ Trust paras 21-26 where the Commission stated it did “not consider that showing the public
an example of expert seamanship and technological innovation in infrequently held high end yachting
events such as the America’s Cup will have sufficient educative value to qualify as ancillary to the
charitable purposes of educating the public about sailing skills”
17 Huia Fishing Club at para 24.
18 Swimming NZ at para 28
14
15
10
3.34 For example, in the Swimming New Zealand case, the Board did not consider the
benefits to the growth and development of sport that elite athletes bring as role
models in performing on the world stage, to be a direct benefit to the public. In the
Southern Zone of NZRL case the Zone submitted (amongst other things) that it
supported the delivery of rugby league at grassroots level and it was not just
focussed on elite and high performance sport.
3.35 In that case, The Charities Registration Board said: “Offering a high level sporting
event does not in itself provide spectators with a benefit that lies within the scope
of charity, and any effect of the games inspiring participation at the grassroots
level is at best a downstream benefit that does not serve to bring promotion of
professional or elite competitions within the scope of charity”19.
3.36 The types of benefits which sports organisations may provide include health
benefits (mental and physical) as well as social wellbeing/community cohesion.
Economic benefits, however, are not charitable in law20.
3.37 Depending on the sport, these benefits may have to be demonstrated or proven
(with evidence) before the Charities Registration Board will accept they exist.
3.38 For example, in a case involving the NZ Billiards and Snooker Association, where the
national body sought registration, the Commission said:
“Participation in billiards and snooker is unlikely to involve cardiovascular activity
and the Commission has been unable to find any evidence that the promotion of
these games will necessarily advance health or promote healthy activity. While the
Applicant has stated that the playing of both billiards and snooker promotes
members’ health, fitness, education and physical wellbeing, it has not provided
any evidence of such a benefit”21.
3.39 In another case involving the Huia Fishing Club the Commission said:
“promoting the recreational aspects of fishing and boating in the Manuaku
Harbour is [not] education or health... the Commission would require evidence that
participation in these activities would provide general health benefits for all those
who participated. Although the Commission agrees that walking along the beach
to find a spot to cast a line, fishing from a kayak and the act of pulling in a large
fish all expend energy, this is only a small part of what is involved in fishing and
boating. The [Club] has not provided any evidence… to justify a conclusion that
fishing and boating promotes public health through cardiovascular fitness.”
Southern Zone of NZRL at para 62
Northern Equestrian Region at para 48
21 NZ Billiards and Snooker Assn at para 21
19
20
11
3.40 Some sports organisations have been held in New Zealand and overseas to have
purposes that are beneficial to the community. For example, in football, where a
trust established by the English Football Association was found to be charitable. Its
purposes were to organise and provide facilities to enable pupils at schools and
universities in the United Kingdom, to play football or other games and sports by
way of physical education and the development and occupation of their minds 22.
3.41 However a number of sports organisations have been held not to have purposes
that are beneficial to the community including yacht racing23, angling24, football25,
breeding and showing foxhounds26, flying, cricket, lawn-tennis, rowing, swimming,
athletics27.
3.42 Care must be taken in reviewing these cases, as it is not the nature of the sport
itself that determines charitability, but rather the specific application of the
purposes within the sports organisation in connection with that sport. In other
words just because football is listed as a sport that has been held not to be
charitable, this does not mean sports organisations involved in football cannot ever
be charitable. It will depend in each case on whether the sports organisation is
advancing some charitable purpose through football.
3.43 It is also important to note the court has also said that “the idea of the concept of
charitable purpose is evolving in response to changing social circumstances and
the steady development of a more unique New Zealand culture”28 so it is not
necessarily the case that the decisions in older cases will always be determined this
same in the future.
3.44 In deciding if a sports organisation is, or should remain as, a charity, the Charities
Registration Board is required to consider the stated purposes of the organisation
(as stated in its rules/constitution).
Inland Revenue Commissioner v McMullen [1981] AC 1.
Re Nottage [1895] 2 Ch 649, where the English Court of Appeal held that the sport of yacht racing is
not, in and of itself, charitable as the encouragement of a sport or game primarily calculated to amuse
individuals apart from the community at large cannot be held to be charitable, even though it is, to
some extent, beneficial to the public (at 654-656).
24 Re Clifford [1912] 1 Ch 29.
25 AYSA Amateur Youth Soccer Association (Canada) where the Canadian Supreme Court, held that it
was an organisation set up to promote soccer and that any health benefits were simply consequential;
and Northern NSW Football Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2011] NSWCA 51 where the
court held that it had purposes to promote and manage football in the region and rejected the
argument that the effects of playing football improved health and general wellbeing of the community
and the participants as a purpose in itself.
26 Peterborough Royal Foxhound Society v Commissioner for Inland Revenue [1936] 2 KB 497.
27 Referred to in Travis Trust at para 40.
28 Travis Trust at para 45.
22
23
12
3.45 However it is also entitled to look at the actual, as well as the proposed, activities
the organisation undertakes to see if:
a. the activities reflect the stated purposes;
b. there are other inferred or unstated non charitable purposes;
c. the purposes are providing benefit to the public; and,
d. the non-charitable purposes are ancillary.
3.46 The Board may (and usually does) examine documents and things such as
websites, social media, promotional materials, annual reports and may also make
its own enquires to ensure the purposes are, in practice, charitable.
3.47 In other words, merely drafting the wording of the purposes correctly in an
organisation’s constitution will not be enough. Substance is considered over form.
3.48 The Board looks at each entity individually. It is not relevant to the Board that there
may be other entities with similar purposes which are already listed on the register
of charities.
Public Benefit
3.49 In addition to demonstrating one of the above charitable purposes, the
organisation must be for the public benefit.
3.50 This means a sufficient section of the public.
3.51 For example in the decision involving Optimist Worlds NZ, the Trust which had been
set up to run the 2011 Optimist Worlds, applied for registration as a charity. In
declining its registration, the Commission said:
“sailing is a physical activity which is likely to have cardiovascular benefits,
However management and control of the 2011 Optimist World Championships
will only provide benefits for five elite sportspeople from New Zealand and a
limited number [231]of sportspeople from other countries [55 countries]who are
selected to participate. This event is not open to anyone who wishes to
participate …”
3.52 In the Greater Auckland Netball case, on the issue of a sufficient section of the
public, the Commission concluded:
“the Commission does not consider that managing, operating and governing a
team in the Tasman Trophy (ANZ Championship) is a purpose which provides
sufficient public benefit to be charitable. The ANZ Championship teams consist of
the top netball players in New Zealand and Australia. Participation in such team is
restricted to a very limited number of people based on their skills or ability and
would not be open to anyone who wishes to participate. Any benefits to the
13
members of the public from watching the ANZ Championship would be too
remote to render this purpose charitable”29
3.53 Another example, where the issue of public benefit was discussed, was the
decision on the SEED Foundation, which was established to spot, encourage,
enhance and develop exceptional tennis players in New Zealand. In its decision
declining registration the Commission said :
“While the Commission recognises that the purpose of promoting participation in
healthy activity can be charitable, that purpose must be available to the public or
a sufficient section of the pubic, and must not be for private financial gain. The
Commission considers that the [Foundation’s] purposes and financial resources are
directed primarily towards supporting exceptional tennis players and that more or
less skilled participants are not treated even-handedly.”
3.54 In another decision Team NZ Trust, (which is a separate trust from Team NZ Ltd with
purposes including making grants for the development of sailing equipment
whether or not used in the community), the Commission decided that :
“a limited number of professional sportspeople are being paid to compete on
behalf of a club using expensive high performance equipment which is beyond
the reach of most people… which is unlikely to provide sufficient public benefit.”30
3.55 Finally in the decision on the Waikato Rowing Performance Centre (a regional high
performance rowing centre) the Commission said:
“The Commission considers that the provision of coaching, equipment and
logistical support to rowers in the Waikato who have the potential to represent
New Zealand will provide benefits to only a limited group of elite athletes [37]. …
[therefore] the Applicant’s purposes will not be available to a significant section of
the public.”31
3.56 The other aspect to “public benefit” is that the public must be able to access the
benefit. As such exclusive membership or high membership fees may negate an
otherwise charitable purpose.
3.57 In this regard, in Auckland Water Polo Academy and Educational Trust, the
Commission set out some principles as follows:
“a sporting entity must provide a public benefit. Factors that may count against
this include:

There are unreasonable or unjustifiable restrictions placed on who may
benefit from the activity;
Greater Auckland Netball Ltd at para 27
Team NZ Trust para 46.
31 Waikato Rowing Performance Centre at para 34.
29
30
14

Prohibitive costs associated with the activity (including fees and equipment)
will exclude the less well off;

There is an unreasonable risk of injury or harm associated with the activity
which will outweigh any benefit to the public;

Providing amusement, entertainment or social activities for members is a
primary purpose.”32
3.58 In the case of Strathalbyn Show Jumping Club33 a court in South Australia looked at
this issue in terms of whether members of two separate polo clubs and a polo
association were a sufficient section of the public. The court held that :
“the membership rules … have a common feature, namely the admission to
membership and exclusion of membership is vested in the relatively small Board of
directors or committee of management. It is not open to any member of the
public who wishes to join. Such provisions are not surprising. They are common to a
great many sporting and other associations of persons who have a common
interest… It indicates, however, that those who may benefit from the provisions of
the … Trust Deed constitute a highly restricted class... the class of person on whom
the benefit is conferred is a group or groups of individuals who have a common
interest in the playing of polo… Even if there were less stringent restrictions on or
qualifications of membership, I doubt whether the class or beneficiaries would
meet the necessary public interest test.”
3.59 In the Travis Trust case the court ruled that:
“the purpose of the Trust is to fund a Group 2 race for the benefit of the
Cambridge Jockey Club’s race program. The jockey club has 350 members.
Membership is not open to the public generally upon payment of a subscription or
similar. Instead members must be elected after being proposed and seconded in
writing by two members of the club. It is very much a private club … I hold the Club
is not the community or a sufficient section of it to amount to “public”34.
Auckland Water Polo Academy & Educational Trust at para 20.
Strathalbyn Show Jumping Club Inc v Mayes (2001) SASC 73 (South Australian Supreme Court) at p78
cited in Travis Trust at para 55.
34 Travis Trust at para 58.
32
33
15
Non-Charitable Purposes
3.60 Incorporated societies seeking to be charities must be established and maintained
“exclusively” for charitable purposes and not be carried on for the private
pecuniary profit of any individual.
3.61 The charitable purpose or purposes must be the dominant or main purpose and
any other purposes must be secondary and not be independent purposes of the
organisation in their own right. For example, the promotion of sport itself is not
charitable so it cannot be the main or dominant purpose of the sports organisation
if it wants to be charitable.
3.62 “Exclusively” means that sports organisations cannot have non-charitable
purposes, unless they are merely ancillary to their charitable ones.
3.63 In deciding if a purpose is ancillary or not, this is assessed this from a quantitative
and qualitative perspective.
3.64 In terms of quantitative, the focus is on the significance of the non-charitable
purpose against the organisation’s overall endeavour. Factors which will be looked
at include the portion of income received or spent in respect of that noncharitable purpose compared to the charitable purposes. It “cannot be measured
by the number of pages in a book or website.35” In one case36 the court held that
an activity that represented 30% of the Trust’s endeavours could not be said to be
ancillary.
3.65 The qualitative assessment “has regard to the particular function in issue. A
qualitative assessment helps to determine whether the [non charitable] function is
capable of standing alone or is one that is merely incidental to a primary
purpose37”.
3.66 For example, a rugby club which has social activities such as running a bar, quiz
nights, gaming machines, social events and other non-sporting activities, where
these activities account for the majority of the club’s income and/or a significant
part of the Club’s activities, would be unlikely to be registered as a charity as social
purposes are not charitable. In this situation the social activities might be regarded
as stand-alone independent purposes of the Club. This does not mean that sports
organisations cannot have social activities, but they must be secondary or
incidental to the club’s main (charitable) purpose.
Re Greenpeace of NZ Inc, High Court, CIV 2010-485-829, 6 May 2011.
Re Education New Zealand Trust HC Wellington CIV 2009-485-2301, 29 June 2010.
37 Greenpeace (HC) at para 73.
35
36
16
3.67 In the case of Southern Zone NZRL the Board concluded that the promotion of
sporting success for elite athletes; recreation and entertainment of audiences and
supporters; and professional development of players, coaches and administrators
are not charitable purposes. They were also found to be independent and standalone purposes and were not merely ancillary to a charitable purpose.
Section 61A Charitable Trusts Act
3.68 Another basis on which charitable status can be granted by the Charities
Registration Board is under section 61A of the Charitable Trusts Act.
3.69 Under this section three requirements have to be met. The entity must (1) have a
“facility” (2) that is “provided for recreation or other leisure time occupation” and
be (3)“in the interests of social welfare.”
3.70 The courts have found the provision of facilities for sports for community use and
educational hobbies for young people to be charitable under this section38.
3.71 The courts have also held that the provision of stadia (for example Wellington
Regional Stadium) as a community asset to host a range of multi-purpose sporting
and cultural events in a region falls within this section.39
3.72 The most difficult element is in showing that the facility “is in the interests of social
welfare.”
3.73 In the NZ Billiards and Snooker Assn decision the Commission decided the
Association’s purpose did not meet section 61A for the following reasons:
“Promoting the games of billiards and snooker could be considered to be a
“facility” that is “provided for “recreation or other leisure time occupation. While
these facilities are capable of making life more enjoyable, the Commission does
not consider these facilities are provided in the “interests of social welfare”. That is
the Commission does not consider that the facilities are provided with a view to
meeting a need of the community which as a matter of social ethics ought to be
met, nor are they provided with the purpose of improving the condition of life for
the persons for whom the facilities are primarily intended.”
38
39
Guild v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1992] 2 AC 310
CIR v Wellington Regional Stadium Trust [2006] 1 NZLR 617
17
3.74 Subsequent to that case, the Board40 has indicated that in order for a facility to be
provided “in the interests of social welfare”:
a. the facility must meet a need of the community which as a matter of social
ethics ought to be met in the attainment of some acceptable standard of
living; and
b. the organisation providing the facility must be altruistic in nature.
3.75 This means the activity being conducted must have as its purpose, the
improvement of conditions of life for the participants or the attainment of some
acceptable standard of living. Entertainment or social contact is not regarded as
improving conditions of life. Factors that may be relevant in deciding if an activity
meets a need to improve the conditions of life may include geographical isolation
of the community, lack of public transport, alternative local facilities at affordable
prices and the size of the community and comparisons with facilities available
elsewhere.41
3.76 In Northern Region Equestrian Trust the Board stated that “it would be a unique
case in which a facility purpose-fitted to a particular sport (or family of sports)
would be shown to be in the interests of social welfare.”42
3.77 The Board noted the position of the Charities Commission of England and Wales on
this as a starting point:
“In principle the Act can apply to multi-purpose sports facilities such as sports
centres or recreation grounds. Although such facilities are of course used by clubs
and teams for playing competitive sport they are provided for use by the public at
large – by people of all ages, of varying degrees of proficiency and of varying
states of health. No special equipment is needed (or at least none which cannot
be provided through a modest entrance fee). Such facilities are therefore
characterised as ones for healthy recreation rather than ones for promoting sport
and are therefore facilities provided with the object of improving conditions of life.
However facilities of this kind can be contrasted with facilities for a single sport
which are used only for the purpose of playing that particular sport… it is more
difficult to regard a facility for the playing of a particular sport as one that is
provided with the object improving conditions of life, since it seems to be
concerned with the promotion of the sport in question.”
Northern Equestrian Trust at para 26.
Charities Commission of England and Wales interpretation of the equivalent section under its Act,
referred to in Northern Region Equestrian Trust at para 27.
42 Northern Region Equestrian Trust at para 29.
40
41
18
3.78 It will probably not be enough for a single sport facility to say that it will be
available for use by others.
3.79 For example, in Northern Region Equestrian Trust the Trust submitted that the facility
would be available for non-equestrian events such as Tough Guy challenge,
school cross country events, mountain biking/BMX , orienteering. However the
Board concluded that:
“the overriding focus is on securing and developing a facility capable of
supporting equestrian sports in New Zealand… [which is] not analogous to the
provision of public recreation grounds”.
4.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF BEING REGISTERED AS A CHARITABLE ENTITY
4.1
The advantages and disadvantages of being registered as a charity are
summarised in this section.
Donee Status
4.2
Sports organisations that are registered charities under the Charities Act, and that
indicate they want to be a donee organisation on the application form, will
acquire that status43.
4.3
Where a sports organisation is a donee organisation any gifts of money it receives
(over $5) from individuals and certain companies44 qualifies for a tax credit for that
individual or company This is a significant incentive for many philanthropists and
other funders seeking to support sport by way of a donation.
4.4
Sports organisations undertaking fundraising will also benefit from this status as it
allows donations, for example by way of raffles, pins, and street appeals (if over
$5) to be tax free.
4.5
Approval as a donee organisation is granted by the IRD (not the Charities Office)
and may be granted to an entity that “applies its funds wholly or principally to
charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or cultural purposes in New Zealand”.
It is understood that it is the IRD’s current practice to accept the decision of the Charities Registration
Board as to whether or not an entity has charitable purposes. If it has then donee status will be granted
by the IRD. Similarly if the Charities Registration Board declines registration or deregisters a charity, the
donee status will not be granted or will cease to apply, as the case may be.
44 Unlisted companies with less than 5 shareholders.
43
19
4.6
A sports organisation that is not a registered charity or which loses its status as such,
will find it harder to become a donee organisation as, it will not meet the
“charitable purposes” category and will instead have to demonstrate to the IRD
that it applies its funds mainly in New Zealand for “benevolent, philanthropic or
cultural purposes”. An example of this might be a Maori dance sport organisation,
which might fit the cultural category.
4.7
lf a sports organisation has, but then loses its status as a registered charity, it will
cease to be a donee organisation. For more information go to
www.ird.govt.nz/charitable-organisations/chart-orgs-deregister.
Tax Exemption
4.8
Registration as a charity provides automatic tax exemption on the income the
charity receives as well as GST credits, and exemptions from paying fringe benefit
tax (FBT) and residents withholding tax(RWT).
4.9
However most sports organisations can obtain tax exempt status under a different
provision of the Income Tax Act (section CW46) if they are a club, society,
association, or trust that is:
a.
established mainly to promote an amateur game or sport; and
b.
that game or sports is conducted for the recreation or entertainment of
the general public; and
c.
the entity doesn’t use any of its income for private pecuniary gain.
4.10 It should be noted that until 30 June 2014, this tax exemption was not available for
trusts, which is why many trusts had to rely on obtaining registration as a charity to
receive the benefit of tax exemption. This is no longer the case following an
amendment to the Income Tax Act 200745.
4.11 As most sports organisations, including trusts, will satisfy the amateur sport promoter
criteria there is little advantage from a tax perspective for a sports organisation to
be a registered charity.
Funding
4.12 Some funders such as gaming trusts and community trusts will only provide funding
to registered charities.46
4.13 If the sports organisation has funders or potential funders in this category, then not
being a registered charity, or not having charitable purposes, will obviously impact
on the extent to which funding can be obtained.
Amendment to Income Tax 2007, by section 33(4) of the Taxation (Annual Rates, Employee
Allowances, and Remedial Matters) Act 2014 (2014) No 39.
46 For example the Central Lakes Trust.
45
20
4.14 However there are still many funders in sport that do not require the sports
organisation to be a registered charity.
Status
4.15 Having status as a registered charity also provides sports organisations with a status
that is increasingly being recognised as an advantage in the not for profit sector.
This is largely because the obligations of the charity to annually report on the
charity including its financials allow for greater scrutiny, transparency and
accountability which can make charities more appealing to third parties looking to
work with it.
4.16 The promotion of a sports organisation as a registered charity can also be a helpful
“marketing” tool. However a sports organisation cannot say is a charity, unless it is
a “registered” one.
Discounts
4.17 Sports organisations that do not have charitable status may also miss out on
suppliers of products and services that provide discounts or better rates for
registered charities47 .
Compliance
4.18 The Charities Act imposes obligations on registered charities (such as filing an
annual return, alterations to rules, and officers) which are not required to the same
extent,48 if a sports organisation is not a registered charity.
4.19 However with changes expected to the Incorporated Societies Act it appears likely
the same or similar obligations will be introduced for all societies whether or not
they are registered charities, so there may be little difference in compliance
obligations for an organisation that is not registered as a charity.
5.
WHICH SPORTS ORGANISATIONS ARE LIKELY TO BE CHARITABLE?
National Sports Organisations
5.1
Based on the Charities Registration Board’s recent decisions, it now appears it will
be difficult for most national sports organisations to obtain or retain charitable
status.
For example Microsoft and other technology related companies. See https://www.techsoup.net.nz/
Incorporated Societies are required to file an annual financial statement under section 23 of the
Incorporated Societies Act. Trusts registered under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 are not required to file
annual returns.
47
48
21
5.2
In the Swimming New Zealand decision the Board made some general conclusions
about national sports organisations as follows:
“..as a general proposition, bodies established to administer and manage a
sporting code or discipline in a region or for a nation are likely to be established for
the purpose of promoting sport as an ends in itself.” [para 37]
“ the promotion of sports for elite athletes does not provide sufficient public benefit
to qualify as charitable in law and the promotion of sporting success is not itself a
charitable aim.” [para 39]
“the promotion of sport (including amateur conducted on a not for profit basis) as
a means to the following ends is not a charitable purpose:
a. providing private pecuniary interests to players and others involved in the
sport;
b. promoting sporting success for elite athletes;
c. providing entertainment and recreation to spectators at sports events.”
5.3
To obtain or retain charitable status from the Board, it appears NSOs will now need
to demonstrate the following:
a. That the purpose of the sports organisation in promoting and governing the
sport, is charitable, in that it either provides relief for vulnerable people,
advances education and/or the sport itself provides health or other benefits to
the community;
b. That this charitable purpose/s is of benefit to a sufficient section of the public. A
national squad or team will not be sufficient. A group of members or wider
group of athletes may be sufficient depending on the number of them and as
long as the criteria for joining is not restrictive;
c. That this charitable purpose or purposes are the dominant, primary or main
purpose of the NSO, and any other non-charitable purposes (such as
supporting its members, managing elite sport teams, and holding competitions)
are ancillary. If the amount of money received or spent on the non-charitable
purposes and/or the effort and focus on them is greater than that
received/spent on the charitable purposes, it will be difficult to demonstrate
that the NSO has exclusively charitable purposes. As a guide, if the noncharitable purposes represent greater than 30% of the NSO’s operations, this will
probably not be consider as ancillary. However this percentage should not be
applied as a strict rule, as the Board will view the purposes and the activities
holistically;
22
d. That the benefits provided by the NSO are directly beneficial to the public and
not a downstream effect from the NSO’s operations. Where an NSO has
programmes (like junior development programmes) which it delivers directly to
the community this will be helpful. If they are delivered through regional and
local clubs, it may be more difficult to prove the direct public benefit.
Regional Sports Organisations
5.4
The position for Regional Sports Organisations (RSOs) is similar to NSOs. In the
Southern Zone of NZRL decision, the Charities Registration Board said 49:
“The Board considers that as a general proposition, bodies established to
administer and manage a sporting code or discipline in a region are likely to be
administered for the purpose of promoting sport as an end in itself. As such entities
of this kind are likely to lie outside the scope of charity in the New Zealand law.”
5.5
The Board’s view also appears to be that rules which show membership by an RSO
of an NSO to develop the sport as a whole, and/or other rules which create control
by an NSO of the RSO (such as complying with its rules), mean the RSO is promoting
sport as an end in itself.
5.6
The fact that the goal of an RSO is to deliver the sport at grassroots level is not seen
as sufficient. In the Southern Zone of NZRL decision the Charities Registration Board
said 50:
“The Board considers that the fact that the Zone focuses on administration of the
game at regional level does not in itself support an inference that the Zone
promotes the game as a means to advance charitable purposes” ; and
”a purpose to promote rugby league … is not converted into a purpose to
advance charitable purposes simply because it is focussed on the game at grass
roots level.”
5.7
In other words because there may be some downstream benefits of the sport at
grassroots level (which the regional body is helping to achieve), does not mean (in
the Charities Registration Board’s view) that a regional body can claim that this is
its charitable purpose.
5.8
However depending on how an RSO engages with its communities, it may be
better able, than an NSO, to show a direct benefit to the public, especially if it is
directly involved in delivering the sport at grassroots level and can show the health
or other benefits of doing so.
49
50
Southern Zone NZRL Decision at para 37.
Southern Zone NZRL Decision at para 59-61
23
Regional Sports Trusts
5.9
Most regional sports trusts are charitable trusts established under the Charitable
Trusts Act. In theory, if they have been accepted for registration by the Registrar of
Charitable Trusts (which requires them to have charitable purposes), then they
should also satisfy the Charities Registration Board. However there have been some
cases where there are differences of view between the two agencies, and to
obtain the benefits of being a registered charity, it is the Charities Registration
Board which must be satisfied the trust has charitable purposes.
5.10 Many regional sports trusts are delivering sport and physical activity directly to their
communities. If this is their predominant purpose, they can prove the benefits
being received and they are serving a sufficient section of their communities, they
should have little difficulty in obtaining or retaining registration as a charitable
entity.
5.11 RSTs that have as their main purpose more of a supporting role for others who
actually deliver sport and physical activity (such as to Clubs and schools) may find
it harder to obtain or retain charitable status. This is an important consideration as
RSTs move towards less sport delivery in their communities than in the past to a
focus on leadership and capability building.
Sports Events Entities
5.12 The position for entities that own or manage sports events will depend on the
nature of the event and how open it is, in terms of entry, to the public.
5.13 The Greater Auckland and Optimist World NZ decisions suggest that sports events
which are not open to the public, or have restrictive criteria to participate, will
have difficulty meeting the public benefit test and are unlikely to be charitable. For
this reason national sports organisations establishing event entities for hosting World
Championship and other international events, will have difficulty obtaining
charitable status if that is their main purpose
5.14 Event entities that have as their primary purpose running sporting events for specific
communities (eg children) or the wider public, where they are not doing so for
private gain, should be able to obtain registration.
Sports Partnerships/Sportsvilles and Facility Entities
5.15 Where sports clubs have formed an entity to manage a facility or to enable them
to work together as a sports partnership or sportsville, they should be able to obtain
registration as a charity as long as the primary purpose of that governing entity is
for the public benefit and that benefit can be demonstrated.
24
5.16 The benefits intended by the governing entity (not of the clubs) need to be shown
and cannot be downstream. For example it may not be sufficient for the governing
entity to rely on the health benefits that the clubs themselves bring by having their
sports played at the facility. The entity will need to show that “it” exists for benefits
that directly reach a sufficient section of the public. For example, this may include
purposes which allow the entity to provide fitness facilities as well as sport and
physical activity programmes and activities which are open to the public.
5.17 If the facility is on public recreation grounds such as parks and playing facilities and
is for multiple sports and /or multi-purpose it should be recognised as charitable.
However if the facility is only for one sport or specific activities and not for general
use or it has limitations on access (eg high costs to purchase a key or membership
fees) this may negate the otherwise charitable purpose.
5.18 The Northern Region Equestrian decision makes it clear that facilities developed for
single sports will have difficulty obtaining charitable status.
Sports Clubs
5.19 Clubs which manage and deliver sport at a local level should be able to obtain
registration as a charity, if their purposes, activities and constitution, reflect a
dominant purpose of providing health or other benefits through sport.
5.20 For some sports, like billiards, fishing, gliding, bowls and croquet, evidence may be
required to support the claim that the sport provides health and other benefits
where the health benefits are not so obvious to those making the decisions. In
some cases we are aware that the Charities Registration Board has relied on the
sport or activity having a METS value of 3.0 or more to be regarded as providing a
benefit.51
5.21 Clubs will also need to show in their rules that the membership is open to all and
they have few restrictions on becoming a member. For example the fees cannot
be unreasonable.
5.22 Clubs will also need to demonstrate that the charitable purpose will reach a
sufficient section of the public. Depending on the size of the Club and the purpose
it is seeking to achieve, benefits that only club members can receive, may limit the
Club’s ability to show it is serving a sufficient section of the public.
5.23 Clubs that exist simply to deliver sport as an end in itself, and as a member body of
RSO and NSO, may have difficulty in obtaining or retaining their status as registered
charities.
The METS level is set out in the Compendium of Physical Activities. See
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/
51
25
Foundations and Trusts
5.24 Some sports organisations have established foundations or trusts which are
separate but linked to the organisation through mechanisms such as trustee
appointment. Sometimes these are established by individuals outside of the sport.
5.25 It is clear that entities set up primarily to fund or support elite athletes will have
difficulty in obtaining registration. They will need to have purposes which provide
relief for vulnerable people (eg scholarships to athletes with financial hardship);
advance education in a structured way (eg fund sports programmes for the
community) or provide some other benefit, and in either case, do so to a sufficient
section of the public.
6.
PRACTICAL STEPS
Not Registered
6.1
The first practical step to consider is whether or not registration as a charity is
necessary for the sports organisation or whether the benefits can be obtained by
other means.
Constitution or Trust Deed Wording
6.2
If the decision is made to proceed (or continue) with registration then the wording
of the objects in the constitution or trust deed must expressly state the specific
charitable purpose/s of the organisation. This also applies when altering the
constitution or trust deed of the sports organisation.
6.3
Objects which refer to the promotion of the sport in and of itself will not be
charitable, unless they specify the charitable purpose being advanced such as
education or community benefits.
6.4
References to the sports organisation’s membership of their national or regional
bodies, where those bodies are not themselves charitable, will not be a charitable
purpose, so they will need to be shown as ancillary in order to be approved.
6.5
The common reference in the objects to a sports organisations being an “amateur
sport for the recreation or entertainment of the general public” is also not a
charitable purpose. (Although such objects are appropriate if the sports
organisation wishes to have tax exemption as an amateur sports promotion under
another section of the Income Tax Act).
26
6.6
There are other sections of the constitution which must comply with the
requirements of the Act including:
a. Non pecuniary gain provisions;
b. Winding up provisions which provide that any surplus assets are to be
transferred to another charitable organisation or organisation with charitable
purposes52.
Activities
6.7
Even if the wording of the Constitution clearly sets out the organisation’s charitable
purposes, this will not be enough to obtain or retain charitable status. The Charities
Office will look behind the constitution to see the actual activities of the
organisation. If they do not align, then registration as a charity may not be
granted.
6.8
Sports organisations with charitable purposes should ensure the publications and
information about their activities clearly demonstrates the charitable purposes. For
example in websites and annual reports.
Evidence
6.9
For some sports, organisations may have to obtain detailed evidence in support of
their application or response to the Charities Office of the health benefits of their
sport to prove those benefits exist. This evidence may take the form of academic
research on the sport’s benefits to the community or a specific study. There may
be other benefits that can be shown as well, such as social benefits to the
community.
Separate Entities
6.10 Sports organisations may consider “carving out” their charitable purposes from the
organisation and undertaking them through a separate legal entity. This would
enable that separate entity to be exclusively charitable and obtain the benefits of
that status.
6.11 However establishing a separate entity brings with it several implications including:
a. Legal and related costs to establish the entity;
b. Possible amendments to the sport’s organisations constitution to permit the
establishment of the trust and/or carve out the charitable purposes;
c. Establishment of a separate governance structure including finding suitable
board members and the cost and administration of that board;
See The Browns Bay Raquets Club Inc and The North Shore Riding Club Inc (see table attached)
which were declined registration as a charitable entity for this reason.
52
27
d. Separate reporting and accounting requirements will be required, and the two
entities may need to consolidate their accounts.
7.
CONCLUSION
7.1
Recent decisions of the Charities Registration Board will clearly make it more
difficult for many sports organisation to obtain and retain registration as a charity.
7.2
We understand the Charities Registration Board has made a decision to remove
some sports organisations from the Charities register on the grounds that sports
promotion purposes are not charitable. Its view, as a general proposition, is that
bodies established to administer and manage a sporting code or discipline in a
region or nationally are likely to be promoting sport as an end in itself and are not
likely to be charitable.
7.3
Unless the decisions of the Board are successfully challenged in our courts, or there
is a law change (as they have done in the UK to expressly include amateur as a
charitable purpose in and of itself), sports organisations at national and regional
level in particular may wish to revisit whether or not they need to have registration
as a charitable entity.
7.4
Sports organisations at local level will need to ensure they have their constitutions
well drafted with their actual activities reflecting those charitable purposes.
28
APPENDIX A
Entity
Decision by
Date
SEED Foundation Inc,
Charities
Commission
Charities
Commission
Charities
Commission
Charities
Commission
Charities
Commission
Charities
Commission
Charities
Commission
Charities
Commission
Charities
Commission
Charities
Commission
Charities
Commission
Charities
Commission
Charities
Commission
Charities
Commission
Charities
Commission
Charities
Registration Board
Charities
Registration Board
Charities
Registration Board
Charities
Registration Board
9 July 2008
The North Shore Riding Club
Inc
Huia Fishing Club Inc
The Browns Bay Racquets Club
Inc
NZ Billiards and Snooker
Association Inc
Nelson Lakes Gliding Club Inc
Greater Auckland Netball Ltd
Team NZ Trust
Team NZ Ltd
Optimist Worlds NZ Ltd
Kaikoura Aero Club Inc
Auckland Water Polo
Academy & Educational Trust
Wakatere Sailing
Development Trust
Waikato Rowing Performance
Centre Inc
NZ Snowboardcross
Community Health Fitness and
Development Charitable Trust
Southern Zone of NZRL Inc,
Northern Equestrian Trust
Swimming New Zealand Inc
Reference
No. (if applic)
9 July 2008;
8 August 2009
24 August 2009
19 October 2009
13 January 2010
15 April 2010
11 February 2010
11 February 2010
16 February 2011
15 July 2011;
16 August 2011
26 October 2011
5 April 2012
1 November 2012
19 November 2012
15 April 2013
15 April 2013
Decision No
2011-2,
Decision No
2011 -8
Decision
2011-11
Decision No
D2011-7
Decision No
2012-04
Decision No
2012-2
Decision No
2012-3
Decision
No:2013-4,
Decision No:
2013 -6
30 September
2014
All decisions of the Charities Commission and Charities Registration Board can be found
at www.charities.govt.nz/charities-in-new-zealand/legal-decisions/view-the-decisions/
29